Nothing But the Blood of Jesus!

Posted by William and Tamara Eaton on Saturday, 14 March 1998, at 12:13 p.m.

Last month William and I were involved in a discussion (on the Christian Homeschool Forum on Compuserve) in which we refuted the *heresy* that Jesus died spiritually. Peggy Kinney was also involved in that discussion and we very much appreciate her strong stand for the truth here! We have a LOT going on right now. (We'd covet your prayers!) So we really don't have time to get into another deep discussion right now, but we'd like to share the messages William and I posted last month on this serious subject. (The first part is from me, the second part from William, but we are obviously of ONE mind here!)

God's Word is clear--Jesus did NOT die spiritually, His death was *physical* (Heb.10:10) He was without sin and became a sin-offering, holy and pure--accomplishing His work of redemption for us *on the cross* (Col. 2:14-15; 1 Pet. 2:24 ; 1 Pet 3:18; 1 Pet 4:1; Col. 1:21-22)

Jesus didn't literally become sin like those who teach Jesus died spiritually would have us believe--if that were true, it would have violated the Old Testament type--which stated that in order to be acceptable to God, the animal which was sacrificed for the sinner had to be without spot or blemish. (Lev. 4:3, 27-28; 9:3; Deut. 15:21) And at no point did that sin-offering become an unholy sacrifice--either before or after its death.

Jesus was our perfect, sinless sacrifice--the Lamb of God, without blemish and without spot, pure and holy. He did NOT "go to hell" or "have to be born again".

" Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot..." 1 Peter 1:18-19

Those who teach the false doctrine that Jesus died spiritually try to use Ephesians 4:9-10, to support their claim that Jesus went to hell:

"(Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)" Eph.4:9-10

Some conservative Bible scholars believe this refers to Christ's descent from heaven to earth--and is a reference to His Incarnation, not to going to the pit! (Isaiah 44:23 also uses the expression, "lower parts of the earth" to signify simply the earth itself.)

In some places in the Bible, the term translated as "hell" means "Sheol" (In Hebrew) or "Hades" (in Greek) and both terms actually mean "the place of departed spirits" .

Both Old and New Testaments show that there is a separation between the righteous and unrighteous in this place of departed spirits. For example, in Luke 16, the lost are shown to be in Hades in a place of torment and the righteous are seen to be in "Abraham's bosom" or paradise--a place of comfort. (Also some more scriptures pertaining to this issue: 2 Cor.12:1-4, Phil 1:23; 2 Cor. 5:8)

So, for example, when the Messiah in Psalm 16:10 (quoted in Acts 2:31) says, "For thou wilt not leave my soul in Sheol/Hades, " He meant God would not leave Him in the realm of the dead or departed spirits, not that He was going to Hell and then become "born again"!

The term "hell" should only be used to translate the Greek term "Gehenna" (Mark 9:43) which is equivalent to the Lake of Fire in Revelation 20:11-15, and will be where the wicked will be suffering for all eternity after Judgment day.

The KJV uses the term "hell" to describe "hades" and herein lies the problem. Our present day understanding of the term "hell" does not reflect this understanding. "Hell" is understood to mean "the lake of fire," and not "hades" or place/realm(for lack of a better term) of departed spirits. Of course the OT term for hades is sheol, but these terms are not synonymous with hell.

If you are using the term "hell" to mean "hades" then we have no problem, Jesus indeed found Himself in the realm of departed spirits (hades) but if you mean "hell" as the place of eternal punishment, then we have a major problem, because nowhere does the Bible state that Jesus went to "hell" for punishment or for any other reason.

While on the cross, Jesus declared three things that refute this false heretical doctrine of Jesus dying spiritually:

1. "Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." (Luke 23:43) (Today means today!)

2. "It is finished" (John 19:30) (It was finished on the cross--not three days later in "hell" as falsely taught by those who believe Jesus died spiritually)

3. "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit" (Luke 23:46)

One might ask: Why do some teach that Jesus "became sin?" Where does that come from?

First of all, some confuse the type of sacrifice Jesus made--it was substitution, not identification. He identified with us by His birth--taking on humanity, but He died as a sinless, spotless Lamb of God in substitution for our sins. (My emphasis added below, obviously!)

"For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, **separate from sinners**, and made higher than the heavens; Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself." --Hebrews 7:26-27

The term for sin and sin-offering are the same in Hebrew, so when Paul talks about "he hath made him to be sin for us", it is understood that he was referring to "sin-offering".

"For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." -- 2 Cor. 5:21

Heb. 10:6 gives us an example of where only the Greek term for sin is used in this passage, but it is translated as a sin-offering instead of sin. "In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure."

A sin-offering was not sinful at death to the Jews, but a sinless sacrifice for sin! The New Testament view also shows this to be true in Heb. 9:14:

"How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself **without spot to God**, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?"

And 1 Peter 1:18-19:

"Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot..."

One asks: "When you say that they teach that Jesus died spiritually, do you mean that He died only spiritually, or that He died spiritually, as well as physically?"

Those who teach the *heresy* that Jesus died spiritually believe he died two deaths--physically and then spiritually. (How could GOD die spiritually???!) They deny that the Blood of Jesus atoned for our sins.

Someone mentioned E.W. Kenyon in her note, whose books influenced some of the modern-day ministers who teach this heretical doctrine. Here are just a few of his quotes:

------------------BEGINNING OF QUOTES-------------------

Kenyon said: "Jesus was conceived without sin. His body became mortal, only then could He die. When this happened, spiritual death, the nature of Satan, took possession of His Spirit." -- E.W. Kenyon

"He was to partake of Spiritual Death, the nature of the Adversary. It has been said that God could not do a thing like that. That is sense knowledge reasoning. . .Satan would become His master." -- E.W. Kenyon

"He is spiritually dead. The worm. He has become what John's Gospel, 3:14, said. "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so much the Son of Man be lifted up. He had been lifted up as a serpent, Serpent is Satan. Jesus Knew He was going to be lifted up, united with the Adversary." --E.W. Kenyon

"You remember that He uttered the sentence, "It is finished." You can now understand that He did not mean that He had finished His Substitutionary work, but that He had finished the work the Father gave Him to do first. . .If Jesus paid the penalty for Sin on the cross, then Sin is but a physical act. If His death paid it, then every man could die for himself. Sin is in the spirit realm. His death was but a means to an end. . .When Jesus died, His spirit was taken by the Adversary, and carried to the place where the sinner's spirit goes when he dies." -- E.W. Kenyon

"He is the first born out of spiritual death, the first person who was ever born again. . . His spirit absolutely became impregnated with the sin nature of the world. . . Christ did not have sin reckoned to Him. He was made to be sin." -- E.W. Kenyon

"Satan triumphantly bore His Spirit to the Dark Regions of Hades. All the sufferings and torments that Hell could produce were heaped upon Jesus. When He had suffered Hell's agonies for three days and three nights, the Supreme Court of the Universe cried, "Enough." He had paid the penalty and met the claims of Justice. Satan saw Him justified. God made Him alive in Spirit right there in the presence of the cohorts of Hades. Jesus was made a New Creation. . .Jesus was born into the New Covenant in Hades." -- E.W. Kenyon

-----------------END OF QUOTES------------------------

It's really sickening to even quote these lies--they're messing with the doctrine of Christ, which is heresy! I consider myself a mild-mannered woman (grin) and I personally prefer to stay out of controversial discussions, and I believe in many issues there is room for differing opinions and levels of spiritual maturity--- but this is a matter so *serious*, and one in which William and I have done a lot of study over the years (because, unfortunately, we kept running into people who listened to these teachers of false doctrine) that we felt the truth should be posted.

I'm going to quote God's pure Word here to refresh us all!

"Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" Hebrews 9:12-14

"But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him." --Romans 4:8-9

"In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace..." --Ephesians 1:7

"In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins" --Colossians 1:14

Another Question: "What do you make of Jesus' saying, "My God, my God why have You forsaken Me?" and the darkness that fell?"

If we look at what the whole of scripture teaches about atonement and what happened on the cross, we can understand this passage better, I think. The problems result when someone takes a scripture or two and tries to prove their doctrine without considering all of scripture.

It was not total abandonment by God (God was IN CHRIST reconciling the world to Himself on the cross) but a legal separation--the Father giving His Son unto death on the behalf of sinners.

"To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation." --2 Cor.5:19

"He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?" --Rom.8:32

God so loved the world that He gave us His own Son as an offering for sin--and He suffered the punishment for our guilt! Jesus was God's own sacrifice and chosen by Him.

"The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." --John 1:29

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." --John 3:16

Jesus on the cross was a fragrant offering and most holy sacrifice to God ".... as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour." --Eph.5:2

It is impossible to separate the three eternal manifestations of the Godhead: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God is One Divine Spirit eternally manifested as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Those who teach the heresy that Jesus died spiritually don't understand the nature of the Godhead--otherwise they wouldn't try to divide God up and say things like "a part of God was separated from Himself, and God was no longer the Father of Jesus while He was in Hell"!

"I and my Father are one." John 10:30 and in John 14:16-23, Jesus promises that when He sends the Holy Spirit to indwell the believer that both Jesus and the Father also come to abide in him--because God is ONE Divine Spirit!

"For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." --Col. 2:9

The fact that the Godhead cannot be separated or divided is one of the BASIC doctrines of the Christian faith--those who try to divide God up are considered heretics.

Jesus quoted Psalm 22:1 in fulfillment of Scripture--the entire Psalm is prophetic, referring to the crucifixion of Christ, and He spoke identifying Himself as the One of whom the Old Testament prophecies spoke. (See also John 19:28 "After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst." )

Jesus wasn't just asking a question--He already knew the necessity of His death on the behalf of sinners...and even in His agony, He is aware of fulfilling God's plan for redemption. He didn't (as those that teach the Jesus died Spiritually heresy say) anticipate the horror of being abandoned by the Father for three days because He promised the thief on the cross, "TODAY, thou shalt be with me in paradise."

Instead, it's understood that God had temporarily "turned away" in that instead of delivering His Son FROM death, the Father delivered Him up UNTO death when He became "sin--a sin-offering" for us.

Even a few hours before His crucifixion, Jesus said:

"Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and ***yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me***. --Jn 16:32

Kenyon's premise (and others who believe this heresy) is that since sin is a spiritual thing - a physical death alone could not have cleansed from sin.

William's response to this is:

The only thing that atoned for our sins was the physical shedding of the blood of the Lamb of God, nothing else. Period. Anything more than this is heresy. When the physical Blood of Jesus was poured out, our sins were covered. Men who teach otherwise are heretics. One such man (a very prominent individual-- also a student of E.W. Kenyon) wrote a book on what happened between the cross and the throne. He says emphatically that "the blood does not atone". That's the logical conclusion when something other than the shedding of innocent Blood is required for our redemption. Anyone who believes this kind of stuff, doesn't understand the doctrine of substitutionary atonement. The doctrine of substitutionary atonement is the CENTRAL doctrine of scripture. This doctrine concerns the elements of our salvation!

Once again, *anything more that the physical death of Jesus atoning for our sins is heresy.*

The *physical* life is in the blood and when that life [blood] was poured out, our redemption was secured.

As Tamara has stated, the "why hast thou forsaken me" is a legal separation, for the simple fact that the Godhead cannot be divided up. The *only* way Jesus could die, would be physically.

"To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation." --2 Cor.5:19

Jesus is God. God is Eternal. Eternal Spirit cannot die, otherwise eternal doesn't mean eternal and Jesus was something other than God-- which is why this *heresy* is so serious.

This is a grave matter. If He could die spiritually, He would not be God. Jesus was the God/Man. He died physically in His flesh, but there is absolutely no way He could die spiritually.

A study of the OT sacrifices reveals this clearly. The lamb/bulls/goats were *innocent* victims that had to die *physically* on the behalf of the sinner. They were the type, with Jesus being the antitype. The sacrifice was *most holy* and the death was physical only. Why? Because the sacrifice *never sinned*! Jesus *never* sinned, so He never died spiritually! Jesus became a vicarious substitutionary sacrifice.

The problem is Kenyon's premise. It is flawed. The statement (from Kenyon) is *heretical* because it clearly indicates that Jesus' physical Blood did not atone. His (Kenyon's followers) have voiced this conclusion (that the Blood did not atone) drawn from his blasphemous statements.

There is not one verse that indicates that Jesus died spiritually... or even a verse that would remotely suggest that it would be possible for Jesus/God to die spiritually.

People who believe Jesus died spiritually, yet say, that also believe His blood was sufficient are deceived.

There is no middle ground here, if you're not trusting in the Blood of Jesus ALONE for your salvation, you're not saved.

William and Tamara


Thank You! Thank You! Thank You!

Posted by Melanie - WA on Saturday, 14 March 1998, at 1:06 p.m., in response to Nothing But the Blood of Jesus!, posted by William and Tamara Eaton on Saturday, 14 March 1998, at 12:13 p.m.

This is exactly what I was looking for. Things always make perfect sense when Scripture is applied. What a wonderful way to prepare for Easter! I'm printing this!

Blessings,
Melanie


Re: Nothing But the Blood of Jesus!

Posted by Kevin Megill on Saturday, 14 March 1998, at 1:22 p.m., in response to Nothing But the Blood of Jesus!, posted by William and Tamara Eaton on Saturday, 14 March 1998, at 12:13 p.m.

William and Tamara,

Thanks for your post, which clarified the issue for me. I hadn't ever run into E.W. Kenyon or the particular heresies that you seem to be discussing.

I'll have to think through what you've written.

In the meantime, let me clarify (for the sake of everyone else) that I DO believe Christ's work on the cross was sufficient. He didn't need to complete it by going to hell afterwards, or suffering a second, spiritual death, or anything like that. I DO believe that Jesus is the eternal God and his death was only a human one.

I'm concerned that my posts don't somehow lead someone astray into severe heresy, so I'll leave it at that for now. I do have some minor questions still, but perhaps I can take them up with Peggy and William and Tamara privately. I suspect we're won't be too far apart in our theology, when all is said and done.

Thanks,
Kevin Megill


Re: Thank You! Thank You! Thank You!

Posted by Lucia on Saturday, 14 March 1998, at 1:31 p.m., in response to Thank You! Thank You! Thank You!, posted by Melanie - WA on Saturday, 14 March 1998, at 1:06 p.m.

Ditto Melanie

Thanks so much Eatons.

Lucia


Re: Nothing But the Blood of Jesus!

Posted by Peggy on Saturday, 14 March 1998, at 1:39 p.m., in response to Nothing But the Blood of Jesus!, posted by William and Tamara Eaton on Saturday, 14 March 1998, at 12:13 p.m.

William and Tamara,

You said:"(We'd covet your prayers!)"

You have my sincerest prayers being sent on your behalf!

Love,
Peggy


Re: Nothing But the Blood of Jesus!

Posted by Lisa TX on Saturday, 14 March 1998, at 9:48 p.m., in response to Nothing But the Blood of Jesus!, posted by William and Tamara Eaton on Saturday, 14 March 1998, at 12:13 p.m.

William & Tamara,

You said: "Jesus didn't literally become sin like those who teach Jesus died spiritually would have us believe--if that were true, it would have violated the Old Testament type--which stated that in order to be acceptable to God, the animal which was sacrificed for the sinner had to be without spot or blemish. (Lev. 4:3, 27-28; 9:3; Deut. 15:21) And at no point did that sin-offering become an unholy sacrifice--either before or after its death."

I COMPLETELY AGREE that Jesus was w/o spot or blemish, that He was sinless. I believe Jesus TOOK ON the sins of the world, but didn't BECOME SIN/SINFUL. It was the sins, I think, concentrated all at once, that God the Father couldn't look upon, NOT HIS SINFUL SON (which would, OF COURSE, be heresy!)!

You said: "He did NOT "go to hell" or "have to be born again"."

Of course, He didn't!

You said: "While on the cross, Jesus declared three things that refute this false heretical doctrine of Jesus dying spiritually:

1. "Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." (Luke 23:43) (Today means today!)

2. "It is finished" (John 19:30) (It was finished on the cross--not three days later in "hell" as falsely taught by those who believe Jesus died spiritually)

3. "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit" (Luke 23:46)"

I agree.

You said: "First of all, some confuse the type of sacrifice Jesus made--it was substitution, not
identification. He identified with us by His birth--taking on humanity, but He died as a
sinless, spotless Lamb of God in substitution for our sins."

I TOTALLY agree. I am not confused on this point. Jesus was not "identifying" w/ us on the cross, He was substituting Himself in the place of OUR death.

Everything you quoted from E.W. Kenyon (of whom I've never heard), I totally DISAGREE with. This man is a heretic. I am not saying anything at all like what he is saying. I don't believe in any of the things he says.

You said: "It was not total abandonment by God (God was IN CHRIST reconciling the world to Himself on the cross) but a legal separation--the Father giving His Son unto death on the behalf of sinners."

I'm confused at this point. (You knew it would come eventually! =D) What is a "legal separation"? Are you saying Jesus was just expressing that He didn't want to suffer the pain of physical death (something He wouldn't have to as a holy God)? Or is it that you think He suffered "physical" separation from God when He died (when He otherwise was used to having full communion w/ Him at all times)? I guess it wouldn't be the latter, since you say Jesus God can't be physically separated from the Father God. Right?

You said: "God so loved the world that He gave us His own Son as an offering for sin--and He
suffered the punishment for our guilt! Jesus was God's own sacrifice and chosen by Him."

Amen!

You said: "It is impossible to separate the three eternal manifestations of the Godhead: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God is One Divine Spirit eternally manifested as the Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit. Those who teach the heresy that Jesus died spiritually don't understand the nature of the Godhead--otherwise they wouldn't try to divide God up and say things like "a part of God was separated from Himself, and God was no longer the Father of Jesus while He was in Hell"!"

I believe the members of the Trinity are made of the same thing (i.e., they are each God), but that they are distinct from one another (i.e., have different jobs, etc.). If I am a heretic for believing this, then so is Charles Ryrie. I have never said that "God was no longer the Father of Jesus while He was in Hell." This is heresy.

Perhaps this is a just a question of semantics. I think I'm in agreement w/ you; I think we merely quibble about what "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" means. I think it means God the Father couldn't look upon the SIN (not Jesus), so He turned His face away for a moment. I now see that I could be wrong, and that it was that Jesus felt the full sting of death (physical), which He wouldn't normally have to undergo as God. Is this what you are saying? Am I still a "heretic"?

When I said Jesus died spiritually, did you think I meant He ceased to be God? I didn't.

In Jesus (really!),
Lisa TX


In non-heretical agreement with you, Lisa nt

Posted by Lyn on Saturday, 14 March 1998, at 11:44 p.m., in response to Re: Nothing But the Blood of Jesus!, posted by Lisa TX on Saturday, 14 March 1998, at 9:48 p.m.

no text


Semantics or Heretics?

Posted by Melanie - WA on Sunday, 15 March 1998, at 12:48 a.m., in response to Re: Nothing But the Blood of Jesus!, posted by Lisa TX on Saturday, 14 March 1998, at 9:48 p.m.

It does sound a little harsh to be called a heretic when it seems like it was all a semantics issue. I still say it was an interesting discussion and the net result is that Jesus is ALIVE and He is Lord of ALL! That is truly edifying.

Blessings!
Melanie


Heresy or Hearsay? Semantics are important when you're discussing the Doctrine of Christ!

Posted by William and Tamara Eaton on Sunday, 15 March 1998, at 10:49 a.m., in response to Semantics or Heretics?, posted by Melanie - WA on Sunday, 15 March 1998, at 12:48 a.m.

Hi Melanie,

I don't have much time right now, so I'm posting in response to your note, but not directing all of these comments just toward you but to everyone in this discussion.

Semantics are important...was Jesus God, or was Jesus a God...did God die spiritually or did He die physically? You can't dismiss these issues by saying, "Oh, it's just a matter of semantics."

As Peggy has said, this heresy (Jesus died spiritually) has surfaced throughout history in various forms, but it's always been *heresy*.

Christians may love the Lord and be totally ignorant of the specifics of the atonement. They shouldn't go around proclaiming things they don't understand-- if they do, they could fall into heresy and be used to promote it.

It's one thing to be confused, mixed up, lack teaching...it's another thing to be teaching others or proclaiming untruths to others as truth.

We'll all have to answer to the Lord for the way we handle scripture, especially the doctrine of Christ. Not everyone attends seminary or Bible schools or studies Old and New Testament theology, etc., but all Christians have a responsibility to proclaim the truth...and if one doesn't understand something, he should be especially careful not to influence others.

James 3:1 "My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment."

By the way, the message we posted "Nothing But the Blood" was originally posted on the Christian Homeschool Forum, as we stated at the beginning, and was all written before we read any of the messages on here. So if anyone thinks that they are being labeled "a heretic" , they're placing their own name in there...we haven't called anyone here a "heretic". But we stand behind our statement...if anyone believes that Jesus Christ died spiritually, they are a heretic. Anything more than the physical shedding of Jesus' Blood for the securing of our redemption, is heresy.

While we don't always agree with Hank Hanegraff (sp?), we do agree with him when he says that those who believe and teach such things as Jesus died spiritually are preaching and teaching another gospel, and not the true one. He tells it straight and is right on concerning this issue!

William


Re: Nothing But the Blood of Jesus!

Posted by William and Tamara Eaton on Sunday, 15 March 1998, at 11:39 a.m., in response to Re: Nothing But the Blood of Jesus!, posted by Lisa TX on Saturday, 14 March 1998, at 9:48 p.m.

Hi Lisa,

The message we posted "Nothing But the Blood of Jesus" was originally posted on the Christian Homeschool Forum, as we stated at the beginning, and was all written before we read any of the messages on here. So if anyone thinks that they are being labeled "a heretic" , they're placing their own name in there...we haven't called anyone here a "heretic".

But we stand behind our statement...if anyone believes that Jesus Christ died spiritually, they are a heretic. Anything more than the physical shedding of Jesus' Blood for the securing of our redemption, is heresy.

In response to your questions:

1. God looks upon sinful flesh (all of humanity) EVERY DAY. He sees it all, not only what is happening at the present, but He sees the whole picture of everything! Far beyond our limited scope. Peggy addressed this in one of her posts.God is not "up there" wringing His Hands every time someone commits a sin. He sees it all, from His position of infinite knowledge and understanding.

2. Legal separation is just that...a legal separation, not a literal separation. It couldn't be literal separation if you believe the other parts of scripture, God was IN CHRIST reconciling the world to Himself, as well as the doctrine of the trinity (One God, eternally manifesting Himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).

The following analogy will break down, because who can compare God with man and our American justice system wouldn't allow this, at least I don't think so, but for the sake of illustration, go with me here... perhaps it will help a little:

Picture a judge allowing another person to stand in the stead of a criminal (in proxy) and even allowing him to die on the other's behalf. In the eyes of the law, the proxy is legally guilty of the crime and will pay the price, even though morally and literally, he wasn't responsible. It's a legal act to serve justice. The person might be electrocuted, hung, poisoned, whatever...in the eyes of the law, this person is separated from society by his imputed crimes.

Suppose then, you find out that the judge who is handing down the sentence is the proxy's father. For justice to be served, the sentence must be carried out. He is legally separated from his son because of the situation, although he knows his son is not guilty of anything. (In other words, God is not ignorant, He knew what He was doing all along, He could still look upon His Son, He was still One with His Son.)

This judge (humanly speaking) would love his son even more for the noble thing his son is doing and in no way would separate himself from his son's actions. Even though there is a legal separation...his son is now, in the eyes of the law (which the judge stands for and upholds), a criminal who must pay the price.

3. How could GOD DIE? The only way He could die would be a *physical* death, that's why He took on physical flesh so He could die physically to pay the price for our sins. The life was in the Blood, and when His life was poured out, Jesus' physical body died. NOT SPIRITUALLY but PHYSICALLY! If you're still confused, ask yourself the question, "WHY would He have to die spiritually?" Then answer it theologically.

Colossians 1:14 "in whom we have redemption ***through His blood***, the forgiveness of sins."

Colossians 1:20 and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace *** through the blood *** of His cross.

Colossians 1:21-22 "And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled ***in the body of His flesh *** through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight;

I'm short on time right now, but I'd encourage anyone who is confused to print off the original message we posted in this discussion "Nothing But the Blood", and Peggy's posts, and study the scriptures listed, pray, look into the Old Testament types of sacrifices and teaching concerning atonement and reconciliation. This is the central doctrine of the Bible and is worthy of anyone's time. It's not just "sematical", this has eternal significance --and has bearing on one's salvation, whether they receive or reject the physical, blood atonement of Jesus Christ. We pray the Holy Spirit will bless your studies.

William


Re: Nothing But the Blood of Jesus!

Posted by Lisa TX on Sunday, 15 March 1998, at 12:55 p.m., in response to Re: Nothing But the Blood of Jesus!, posted by William and Tamara Eaton on Sunday, 15 March 1998, at 11:39 a.m.

William,

I am trusting ONLY in JESUS' SHED BLOOD for me on the cross for my salvation. I am not trusting a "spiritual separation" to get me to heaven. Jesus was and is our physical (not spiritual) atonement. I merely disagree, w/ what the "My God...forsaken Me" verse means. I do not think Jesus ceased to be God when He died physically. I do not think God the Father ceased to be His Father at that point, nor do I believe any of the things you seem to think I do!

Is there some Greek in that verse that conveys a clearer meaning, that what He is talking about is what you say? I can certainly see how it could be interpreted that way. I even might be inclined to believe it. It is very plausible that Jesus was lamenting His *physical* death & not a spiritual one.

I looked up "forsake" in my Vine's (Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words). In Matt. 27:46 ("My God, My God...."), the Greek word is ENKATALEIPO & means "to forsake, abandon, leave in straits, or helpless." Jesus felt abandoned by God. I think this was a separation from God the Father (not from God Himself [Jesus] -- how could God the Son be separated from Himself?) for that brief moment in time.

What was the Atonement for, if God could look upon sinful flesh? I think that is the whole point! Jesus made a way for sinful man to be in communion w/ a holy God. I don't think for one minute that God is separate from all humanity, "wringing His hands," wondering what to do. He is in control of everything, but He cannot have communion w/ us w/o the shed blood of Jesus reconciling us to Him! And I don't believe He could have communion w/ His Son (still God!) at the *moment* (only a moment!) Jesus took on the sins of mankind.

I think I see your point, that God cannot be separated from Himself. Is that it? I fully admit that I could be wrong in this interpretation, but I am not intentionally promoting heresy. Please forgive me if it seemed so. Can a person, in your view, think as I do (that God could not "commune" with the sin) and not truly be saved if they ARE trusting ONLY in the Blood?

In Jesus,
Lisa TX


Re: Nothing But the Blood of Jesus!

Posted by Peggy on Sunday, 15 March 1998, at 3:26 p.m., in response to Re: Nothing But the Blood of Jesus!, posted by Lisa TX on Sunday, 15 March 1998, at 12:55 p.m.

Lisa,

Now I feel like we are settling on a ground that has a little more grey area to it and I feel as though I can speak more about it...

You asked: "What was the Atonement for, if God could look upon sinful flesh? I think that is the whole point! Jesus made a way for sinful man to be in communion w/ a holy God. I don't think for one minute that God is separate from all humanity, "wringing His hands," wondering what to do. He is in control of everything, but He cannot have communion w/ us w/o the shed blood of Jesus reconciling us to Him! And I don't believe He could have communion w/ His Son (still God!) at the *moment* (only a moment!) Jesus took on the sins of mankind."

When you pose that question you opened a new door...namely, the "economy of atonement". These are formulas we've devised to explain "how" and "why" Christ's atoning works toward our salvation. The previous discussion concerned what the actual elements were that contribute to that atoning work.

The Bible speaks only of a few elements in the reconciling work of Christ...The example of His life here on earth (the incarnation), His physical death on the cross (the sacrifice), His conquering and promising work (resurrection and ascension). The *facts* of these atoning elements are definitively illustrated and demonstrated in scripture. The economy of the atonement is not as clearly defined and is derived through a more systematic theological inspection of scripture.

Interestingly, those here who have argued that a "spiritual death" is a viable element of the atonement have not based it on any definitive scriptural support. It seems that you've read the element into the scriptural passage based upon a specific theory of economy that you have concluded on a theological perspective you've formulated.

The particular theory of the economy of atonement is built upon a specific perspective you have of God...your "theology"...which defines a Holy God as one that must remain separated from all tainted temporal things in order that He will not become tainted...or perhaps a Holy God whose holiness is of greater concern to Him than those He's created. Or something along these lines. I'm not sure...you'll have to tell me why you've concluded that God's holiness prevents Him from looking upon sin.

As I've stated in another post...my theological perspective includes a God Whose Holiness lies in the facts of His singular creative power, His ability for perfect love and perfect justice. This God has been separated from me not because of His choosing or because of His Holy need or desire to separate Himself from me...but, because of my insistence in separating myself from Him! His perfect love and justice involves Him faithfully with His creation for the purpose of drawing them back into His realm. He loves so much and so well that He condescended to not only look upon my sin, but live in the midst of my sin, and suffer as a result of my sin in order that I might know Who He was...my Creator...my source of life...Who loves me and wants me with Him forever.

Again, you asked: ""What was the Atonement for, if God could look upon sinful flesh?"

God COULD and DID look upon sinful flesh...He lived among it...He suffered and agonized in the midst of it...

...The Atonement was for US...not HIM! HE paid the debt that we could not pay...He paved the way to Him that we could not pave...HE made the sacrifice that we could not sacrifice...HE kept the promises we could not keep. HE did all of this so that WE could look upon HIM and know the source of our life!

Love,
Peggy


My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?

Posted by Peggy on Monday, 16 March 1998, at 12:10 p.m., in response to Re: Nothing But the Blood of Jesus!, posted by Lisa TX on Sunday, 15 March 1998, at 12:55 p.m.

You asked Tamara: "I'm confused at this point. (You knew it would come eventually! =D) What is a "legal separation"? Are you saying Jesus was just expressing that He didn't want to suffer the pain of physical death (something He wouldn't have to as a holy God)?"
 
I cannot answer for Tamara, but I will tell you that if I feel that I have the need to give some interpretation to the passages that contain the final desperate inquiry that Christ made on the cross, I would say that it is as you said...He didn't want to suffer, (but was fully submitted to suffering because He knew it was the Father's will)... 
 
...He knew the preciousness of the earthly life of which He was a part of...He likely found that inthe midst of voluntarily relinquishing that life there was an overwhelming feeling of powerlessness.  He knew, too, the anguish that is intrinsic in the humiliating execution of someone in complete innocence.  And as you said, He knew all too well that he did not HAVE to endure this suffering because of His innocence as the Holy One.  He probably would have liked very much not to have to do it (as evidenced in the Garden), but was compelled by His perfect love to endure all things for the sake of those who would thus be enabled to love in the same submitted way as He had loved the Father and His fellowman.
 
Also remember, He was still very much on the human side of the cross...with the same kind of human emotions as we have.  I know I have *felt* as though God has abandoned me, even though I know with all my heart that He hasn't really. And I cry out to Him in HOPE that I will feel the nearness of Him.  I'm not crying out to someone who I believe is not there to hear me, I cry out to someone that I know will hear me and give me comfort. 
 
Read the words of the psalmist who originally gave shape to those words (Psalm 22).  Was this someone who really believed God was absent? Why waste so many words on someone that he didn't really believe was there?  Was it to entice an absent God?  Or rather, was he forming the words with the SURE HOPE that God was present and would just as surely respond with His comfort and blessings?  The end of the psalm proves just that...as did Christ's resurrection.  It was not a hope frustrated, but fulfilled. 
 
You could say to me that that is all nonsense!!  And I could just as easily say that your interpretation is all nonesense, because the fact is IT IS NOT CLEAR to either of us what was going on in Jesus mind and heart when He cried out in His anguish.
 
We don't *have* to give an interpretive response to that scriptural passage.  It is neither self evident in its content, nor elaborated on in its wider context.  As a matter of fact, I find its wider context quite interesting. Even those who were nearest to him...those who were there in the presence of His agony and within direct earshot of His words greatly misinterpreted what He'd said.  And if they could misinterpret...I could all the more easily misinterpret! 
 
Mat 27:46  About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"--which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"
Mat 27:47  When some of those standing there heard this, they said, "He's calling Elijah."  
 
Love,
Peggy  


Re: Nothing But the Blood of Jesus!

Posted by William Eaton on Monday, 16 March 1998, at 2:01 p.m., in response to Re: Nothing But the Blood of Jesus!, posted by Lisa TX on Sunday, 15 March 1998, at 12:55 p.m.

Hi Lisa,

No one is calling you a heretic.

However, if someone explains what constitutes heresy and if someone confesses to believing the heresy, and promotes it, they are labeled a heretic.

There is a reason for everything, and if one looks at the reason why it was necessary for Jesus to die spiritually (i.e. Kenyon's premise about sin) then the logical conclusion: redemption is not secured by the phyical shedding of the Blood of Jesus.

You said you did not believe Kenyon's statements. I accept that. You are not a heretic. However, there are many, very popular preachers who are spouting Kenyon's position. His conclusion is logical if one accepts the notion that Jesus had to die spiritually to redeem us.

William


Re: Nothing But the Blood of Jesus!

Posted by Lisa TX on Monday, 16 March 1998, at 5:52 p.m., in response to Re: Nothing But the Blood of Jesus!, posted by William Eaton on Monday, 16 March 1998, at 2:01 p.m.

Dearest William & Tamara,

I debated about whether to post this or e-mail it, but I wanted to publicly announce how grateful I am to you both & to Peggy for caring so much about someone not spreading heresy on this board!

Peggy & I have been e-mailing privately, trying to sort this out. Just wanted everyone to know that I finally saw today what she (and maybe the Eatons?) thought I was saying when I said a holy God could not dwell w/ sinful man. By saying that, to Peggy, I was saying that Jesus (who DID dwell w/ sinful man!) was not God! My goodness! Now THAT'S heresy! (Of course, that's not what I thought I was saying!)

I am so grateful she stuck w/ me, to make me see that if I *was* saying that, I was indeed wrong. What compassion! (Thanx again, Peggy!)

So now I'm left to reconcile how a holy God could come down in the flesh to dwell among us. Both things are true: He IS holy and He DID dwell among us. I'll have to think longer on this point, because I know I know how this can be (based on Scripture), but right now my brain is fried!

But I felt compelled to let anyone else who's been following this thread know that the issue has not been dropped & that there are pure motives all around here (at least on the Eatons', the Megills', Peggy's and my parts).

In Jesus,
Lisa TX


I'm not sure I want to jump in on this, but....

Posted by Donna C on Monday, 16 March 1998, at 6:27 p.m., in response to Re: Nothing But the Blood of Jesus!, posted by Lisa TX on Sunday, 15 March 1998, at 12:55 p.m.

I have not followed every posting on this, but have read the last 6 ones, plus heard Lisa TX on the phone as she was formulating what all this has meant.

Proverbial "but..." here. :o) I have a question(s). (and maybe no answer, from me anyway...)

If Holy God (I'm not referring to Jesus: God and man; but God the Father) *can* abide with and face sinful man, then what would be the purpose of the cross -- "Oh, He loves us; He'll let anyone into Heaven." Would not the act of taking on all the sin of the world, past, present, and future, put a division between Jesus, son of God and God the Father?

And no, Jesus did not end up in Hell, that was not necessary, just the blood sacrifice.

(And where does the Apostle's Creed come in with going down into Hell to free the captives? [sorry, I don't have that written anywhere, but I believe that is what it refers to.])

And I'm still walking around the aspect of Jesus as wholly man and wholly God (I believe this!) with the part about walking and abiding here on earth with sinful man. I'm not really addressing this in my first and main question. Not in my eyes, anyway.

Well, I know this is disjointed and I hope I'm not misunderstood....I've got to go get ready for my ride to a Mom's Night Out tonight, so I won't be able to respond til much later tonight or tomorrow afternoon.

In Him,
Donna C


Re: Nothing But the Blood of Jesus!

Posted by Peggy on Tuesday, 17 March 1998, at 9:11 a.m., in response to Re: Nothing But the Blood of Jesus!, posted by Lisa TX on Monday, 16 March 1998, at 5:52 p.m.

Lisa,

You said: "Peggy & I have been e-mailing privately, trying to sort this out. Just wanted everyone to know that I finally saw today what she (and maybe the Eatons?) thought I was saying when I said a holy God could not dwell w/ sinful man. By saying that, to Peggy, I was saying that Jesus (who DID dwell w/ sinful man!) was not God! My goodness! Now THAT'S heresy! (Of course, that's not what I thought I was saying!"

I want also to make it known publicly that
I was not insinuating that Lisa or anyone else was a heretic! What I did ask was: What are the *implications* of making the statement "a Holy God could not dwell with the sinful/sinfilled. That's all.

I posed the question on my own...the Eaton's had no part in asking the question concerning a Holy God. Very clearly, the thing that the Eaton's have spoken out against is the belief that Jesus sacrifice included not only a physical death, but a spiritual death.

Just wanted to make that clear. (grin)

Love ya Lisa!
Peggy


Re: I'm not sure I want to jump in on this, but....

Posted by Peggy on Tuesday, 17 March 1998, at 9:16 a.m., in response to I'm not sure I want to jump in on this, but...., posted by Donna C on Monday, 16 March 1998, at 6:27 p.m.

Donna,

Please see my posts to Lisa...

You asked: "Would not the act of taking on all the sin of the world, past, present, and future, put a division between Jesus, son of God and God the Father?"

Was Jesus' act of sacrifice, which included taking on the sins of the world against the Father's will?

Love,
Peggy


Just Who is this Holy God?

Posted by Peggy on Tuesday, 17 March 1998, at 9:30 a.m., in response to Re: Nothing But the Blood of Jesus!, posted by Lisa TX on Monday, 16 March 1998, at 5:52 p.m.

Lisa,

You said: "So now I'm left to reconcile how a holy God could come down in the flesh to dwell among us."

After much reflection, I wonder if you are posing the right question...

Perhaps,in order to come to some answer to that question, we should drop the "how" and ask instead Who is this Holy God. What attributes constitute His "holiness"? How do we define that which is pure and holy in Him? Then we might have a better chance of coming to some remote idea as to "how" it is that He could dwell among us.

Love,
Peggy


Re: Nothing But the Blood of Jesus!

Posted by Kevin Megill on Tuesday, 17 March 1998, at 11:05 a.m., in response to Re: Nothing But the Blood of Jesus!, posted by Lisa TX on Monday, 16 March 1998, at 5:52 p.m.

Dear Lisa,

You said: "So now I'm left to reconcile how a holy God could come down in the flesh to dwell among us. Both things are true: He IS holy and He DID dwell among us. I'll have to think longer on this point, because I know I know how this can be (based on Scripture), but right now my brain is fried!"

He could do this by the power of His love and by His plan for redemption that began in the garden. There are so many things about the wonders of God; the Trinity, the atonement, the incarnation, His choice of us for redemption that are simply beyond the physical workings of our limited understandings. We can try to sort them out as best we can through the Truths He has given us in His Word and through studying with other believers (like in a forum such as this). But when push comes to shove, there is a point where we just come and say "God, I don't understand, my finite mind just doesn't go that far, but I believe what You say."

I know, Lisa, that you have such a willing heart to believe what God says in His Word, yet you desire to believe with wisdom and understanding...a very honorable goal indeed!! But God sometimes calls up to put things on the back burner for a time (I'm not saying this is the case, but I'm responding to what seems to be your heart struggle to understand) and let Him work His truths deeper into our hearts over time.

Yes, Jesus WAS and IS God, nothing (including the incarnation) ever changed that! He never "took off" His diety to take on human flesh...the divine nature and the human nature dwelled together in total and complete harmony, but I don't completely understand it all...being FULLY God and FULLY man except without sin, but He was.

When on the cross Jesus became the Lamb of God, the sacrificial offering for our sin, He still did not take into Himself our sinfulness...but He bore our burden of sin IN OUR PLACE in order for justice to be appeased. When Jesus cried "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" I don't think Jesus was necessarily making a theological statement...I think it was the cry in anguish and pain of a man forced (by His own choice and Father's good pleasure) to suffer a fate He did not deserve...a follow through from His time of suffering and anguish in the garden of Gethesemene if you will.

These are very hard things for me to understand well...but then I've lost lots of brain cells with every birth! But I do know that no part of scripture is inconsistant with any other part and that God in His love and mercy did things that would seem impossible to do and I am continually in awe at this passage of scripture: "Fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God." Heb 12:2

This may or may not have helped, but I AM ENCOURAGED!!!

In His Joy and Grace,
Kate Megill


Re: Just Who is this Holy God?

Posted by Lisa TX on Tuesday, 17 March 1998, at 11:38 a.m., in response to Just Who is this Holy God?, posted by Peggy on Tuesday, 17 March 1998, at 9:30 a.m.

Peggy,

This is a repeat of what I already e-mailed you, but I wanted to let others know what I thought, too.

God is holy means that He is righteous.

1 John 1:5 - And this is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.

(Verses 6 & 7 are instructive as well.)

John 3:19 - And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their deeds were evil.

Perhaps that is what the deal is. Not that a holy God can NOT dwell among sinful man (He obviously did, in Jesus!), but that God is/was protecting man from His holiness. Jesus willingly veiled His preincarnate glory when He came to Earth, perhaps for this purpose, because it would literally kill sinful man to look upon it? Thoughts?

In Jesus,
Lisa TX


Re: Just Who is this Holy God?

Posted by Peggy on Tuesday, 17 March 1998, at 11:55 a.m., in response to Re: Just Who is this Holy God?, posted by Lisa TX on Tuesday, 17 March 1998, at 11:38 a.m.

Lisa,

You said: "God is holy means that He is righteous."

And what is "righteousness"...or rather, "who is righteous"?

You said: "Jesus willingly veiled His preincarnate
glory when He came to Earth..."

So, is Jesus just an iddy biddy part of God?

You asked: "because it would literally kill sinful man to look upon it?"

And what about the power of His Holiness would bring on death?

Still love ya!

Peggy


Re: Just Who is this Holy God?

Posted by Lisa TX on Tuesday, 17 March 1998, at 1:29 p.m., in response to Re: Just Who is this Holy God?, posted by Peggy on Tuesday, 17 March 1998, at 11:55 a.m.

Hi Peggy,

Righteous means having no sin. Only God is righteous.

*Of course* Jesus is not just a part of God! He is God. I'm saying He willing *veiled* His glory. This does not mean He gave it up or put it aside.

Ex. 19:21 & many other similar verses tell me that man, if he looked on the full holiness & glory of God, would perish.

Ex. 19:21 - Then the Lord spoke to Moses, "Go down, warn the people, lest they break through to the Lord to gaze, and many of them perish."

Just a thought: Are you thinking I should say man couldn't look on the glory of God, rather than man couldn't look on the holiness of God?

In Jesus,
Lisa TX

P.S. Are we getting any hs'g done today? My excuse is I have laryngitis! =D


Well said, Kate! Amen and Amen! (nt)

Posted by Tamara Eaton on Tuesday, 17 March 1998, at 3:02 p.m., in response to Re: Nothing But the Blood of Jesus!, posted by Kevin Megill on Tuesday, 17 March 1998, at 11:05 a.m.

nt


Yeah, we've gotten quite a bit done, today! nt

Posted by Peggy on Tuesday, 17 March 1998, at 3:29 p.m., in response to Re: Just Who is this Holy God?, posted by Lisa TX on Tuesday, 17 March 1998, at 1:29 p.m.

nt


I don't even know how to title these....

Posted by Donna C on Tuesday, 17 March 1998, at 6:10 p.m., in response to Re: I'm not sure I want to jump in on this, but...., posted by Peggy on Tuesday, 17 March 1998, at 9:16 a.m.

Dear Peggy,

You asked:
"Was Jesus' act of sacrifice, which included taking on the sins of the world against the Father's will?"

Of course not! But I think the question I'm trying to ask (I think) (--and that's hard, I'm not typically a "deep" thinker, so bear with me!) is "Can sin be in communion with God?" Jesus took all the sin upon Himself (yes, He was wholly God, but at that point He was also the sacrificial Lamb) - would not that sin separate Himself from God the Father. Does sin not separate us from Him? Is this not why we need a salvation experience with Jesus, so that we can commune with Him? At the point of His death, the debt was paid and although His physical body was laid in the Tomb for 3 days, I believe He was in complete and whole communion with God when He said, "It is finished." and gave up His spirit.

I agree wholly with Kate when she said:
"Yes, Jesus WAS and IS God, nothing (including the incarnation) ever changed that! He never "took off" His diety to take on human flesh...the divine nature and the human nature dwelled together in total and complete harmony, but I don't completely understand it all...being FULLY God and FULLY man except without sin, but He was."

And also Kate telling Lisa, (my paraphrase, sorry, Kate) that there is a mystery here, a great and holy Mystery, that in discussing and "disecting" here, it may not be settled here.

Praise God that although it may not be clear and "settled" here, it IS settled in the heavenlies and at the Throne of Grace.

Thoughts....?
Donna C


Re: I don't even know how to title these....

Posted by Peggy on Tuesday, 17 March 1998, at 10:15 p.m., in response to I don't even know how to title these...., posted by Donna C on Tuesday, 17 March 1998, at 6:10 p.m.

Donna,

You said: "(I think)  (--and that's hard, I'm not typically a "deep" thinker, so bear with
me!)"

LOL...Believe me, ...I think after this thread my brain will never function the same again!  It is getting deader by the minute. LOL

You asked: " Can sin be in communion with God?"

Sin is not a "thing"...it is an action motivated by the heart and carried out by the flesh...it is something perpetrated by a being which has an effect of separation on another being.  Anyone who sins cannot be in communion with God.  Sin by its motive and action, separates us...there is no communion while in the midst of sin, except perhaps, communion with Satan.

You asked: "Does sin not separate us from Him?"

Yes, the act of sin separates us from Him...from Him "the Father" and it separates us from Him, "Jesus Christ", and shuts us off from the Holy Spirit's leading.  It also separates us from each other.

You asked: " Is this not why we need a salvation experience with Jesus, so that we can commune with Him?"

YES, YES, YES!!!   So *we* might be freed to commune with *HIM!!!!!! He already proved that He came to us with every desire to commune with us...nothing was/is/will be preventing *HIM* from desiring to commune with us.  It is *we* who do not desire to commune with *Him*!  Christ's sacrifice was so that we might be freed to come back to Him.  Not the other way around.  God's love for us has always been freely given...He does not need to be freed in order that He might live in loving communion with us...*we* need to be freed in order to live in loving communion with Him (and thus with one another).

You asked: "Jesus took all the sin upon Himself ...would not that sin separate Himself from God
the Father?"

As I have said before, I do not profess to know all that went on between the the Father and the Son, when He was on the cross.  But, what I do know is that they were not separated.  I would not be standing here in the hope that Christ has given me through His forgiveness and His resurrection, if that were true.

I am totally bewildered as to why it is that we are so eager to embrace the idea that God the Father and God the Son should be separated.  Why is this? It is does not uphold the intergrity of the Trinity and it is tantamount to saying that Jesus died spirtually...because if He was separated from God the Father, He did not have the Father's Spirit in Him.  We try to make it seem a little less radical by saying that it was only for a moment...but, separation is separation and what is time in the sight of God?

2 Pet 3:8  But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

Jesus *bore* all the results of our sinful behavior that we perpetrated against Him and the Father and against one another.

1 Pet 2:24  He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.

bore:
Greek: anaphero, to take up (literally or figuratively), bring (carry, lead) up, offer (up).

The sin was carried in His body...it was not one with His Spirit.

Jesus did not become some big lump of sin that required the Father to depart from Him.  He was not somehow attached to the sins...  He "carried the weight of", our wickedness, *our* sin that had separated us from the Father, Himself, and one another.  He bore those sins, He "carried them" as a weight, and "lifted up" that weight to the Father in heaven for forgiveness.  He did what we could not do, because it was by these very sinful deeds that we were already separated from the Father in Heaven...*He* was not separated from the Father...or there would be no forgiveness on our behalf, or resurrection that gives us hope. 

Luke 23:34  Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.

His voluntary sacrifice, His taking upon Himself  the weight of all the sin in the world for the purpose of forgiveness was the will of the Father!  He had every right to carry those sins and offer them up to the Father, because He Himself had forgiven them.  He was in perfect obedience, and that perfect obedience was a fragrant offering to the Lord, not an affront or offense!

To say that God found it necessary to depart from Christ while He bore the sins of the world, would be equal to saying that when we bear under the weight of someone's sin against us and lift them up to God for forgiveness, He separates Himself from us.  There is no sense in this...this is the very thing we've been instructed to do.  This is the thing that is in obedience to His will.  And when we are in His will, we are not separated from Him.

Mat 6:14  For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.
Mat 6:15  But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

1 Pet 2:19  For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God.
1 Pet 2:20  But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God.
1 Pet 2:21  To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.
1 Pet 2:22  "He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth."
1 Pet 2:23  When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly.
1 Pet 2:24  He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.

Love,
Peggy


Re: I don't even know how to title these....

Posted by Lisa TX on Wednesday, 18 March 1998, at 12:00 p.m., in response to Re: I don't even know how to title these...., posted by Peggy on Tuesday, 17 March 1998, at 10:15 p.m.

Peggy,

You are not going to believe this, but I FINALLY see your point about Jesus not dying spiritually & I agree with you!!!! Whew!

I guess, like Kate said, Jesus wasn't making a theological statement there on the cross when He said that about God forsaking Him. You're right -- Jesus bore His sin IN HIS BODY, not His Spirit (I never disagreed w/ this part.) & God saw it as a fragrant offering, just like He did in the O.T. atonement sacrifices. He did not turn His face away then, and He didn't when it was His own Son.

So, I guess I just had it turned around, eh? It's "WE needed a way to get to God," not, "God needed a way to get to US." This makes Him more personal &, you're right, is truer to the whole context of all of Scripture: man separating himself from God by his willing acts of sin; God desiring to make a perfect and lasting way for fellowship w/ His creation. He sent Himself down among men to reveal Himself.

So, is this finally the end of this thread???? I need a nap!

In Jesus,
Lisa TX


Re: I don't even know how to title these....

Posted by Lucia on Wednesday, 18 March 1998, at 1:02 p.m., in response to Re: I don't even know how to title these...., posted by Lisa TX on Wednesday, 18 March 1998, at 12:00 p.m.

Yeah Lisa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You got it!!!!!

Lucia


**ding** (sound of light coming on)

Posted by Donna C on Wednesday, 18 March 1998, at 5:58 p.m., in response to Re: I don't even know how to title these...., posted by Peggy on Tuesday, 17 March 1998, at 10:15 p.m.

Dear Peggy,

I read your post last night, and the light came on, but it was late and my brain was fuzzy to post a reply. And now, I've finally made a circle thru the Boards to get to here and we have to leave in less than 15 minutes for Shepherd Group...so.....

By and large, this was the paragraph that turned the light on:
You said:
"Jesus did not become some big lump of sin that required the Father to depart from Him. He was not somehow attached to the sins... He "carried the weight of", our wickedness, *our* sin that had separated us from the Father, Himself, and one another. He bore those sins, He "carried them" as a weight, and "lifted up" that weight to the Father in heaven for forgiveness. He did what we could not do, because it was by these very sinful deeds that we were already separated from the Father in Heaven...*He* was not separated from the Father...or there would be no forgiveness on our behalf, or resurrection that gives us hope."

He BORE our sin - CARRIED it - didn't BECOME it!! For some reason (Southern Baptist teachings most of my "thinking-Christian life" -- became a Christian at 10, but I'd say I was really began to be tuned in to His Word and teaching at church in jr. high-high school ages), I saw that it was "became". Now, I'm not blaming the church I grew up in, and don't even know if that is where/how I formulated this, just mentioning it, 'cause where would I have gotten that idea?? (I am grateful to God for that particular church that I was in, as they never taught on things that they weren't sure of. Never heard anything negative about raising hands, speaking in tongues, dancing, etc. They did teach and hold strong to the Word of God, that It is Truth NOW and FOREVER, and that did stick with me!!)

Well, just wanted to let you know! Thank you for being patient and even humorous throughout this thread.

In Him,
Donna C


Re: **ding** (sound of light coming on)

Posted by Peggy on Wednesday, 18 March 1998, at 11:19 p.m., in response to **ding** (sound of light coming on), posted by Donna C on Wednesday, 18 March 1998, at 5:58 p.m.

Donna...

I didn't know that lights made a sound when they came on!! (g,d,r)------------------

Love,
Peggy